2024 Elections Thread

[Antiphon1]

Voters care about the abstract issues they are told to care about.  However, everyone regardless of demographic strata cares about the lower levels of Maslow's heirachy.  Oldie but goodie.  That's why the appeals to safety work so well.  Our lizard brains latch onto concrete concerns. 

[ciao_yall]

marsh: I completely understand, but it still frustrates me. Specifically, when people have an issue with something that doesn't really exist (like my migrant crime example). I probably should have asked on a different thread, because I'm still trying to wrap my head around real issues people actually agree to disagree on (or work to solve) versus ginned up fake stuff to score talking points.


FWIW, I don't think many people are thing about BLM, and Free Palestine went from a topic really only seen on college campuses to something I would term real due to all the destruction and actual death. Whether or not the Israeli response to Oct. 7 is justified or not really does cross party lines.

Issues that people are really concerned about are things like men in women's sports and changing rooms (and prisons). Even more important is that Dems will disparage peoples' character for even expressing concern about these issues.

Cowtowing to the extreme activists instead of telling them when they have gone too far does not go well with centrist voters.

(And it doesn't matter what I think; if I'm wrong, everything I say is irrelevant. But if I'm right, then unless and until any party wanting to be in power actually pays attention to voters, rather than trying to tell them what to think, they will be out in the cold.)

Because it's Not. An. Issue.

Fox News has people so freaked out about the occasional trans person who, trust me, doesn't want to make a big deal of their presence, that they are convinced Trump is the only person protecting their daughters from some perv in a wig.

I just moved to the suburbs and the neighborhood Facebook group had a post from a local mom with a rising middle schooler worried about whether there were "furries."

Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick.

OMG. That's hilarious! Oh no! Not the furries! What's the world coming to? Sheesh!

She was so sweet, too. "Not judging, just curious."

[evil_physics_witchcraft]

marsh: I completely understand, but it still frustrates me. Specifically, when people have an issue with something that doesn't really exist (like my migrant crime example). I probably should have asked on a different thread, because I'm still trying to wrap my head around real issues people actually agree to disagree on (or work to solve) versus ginned up fake stuff to score talking points.


FWIW, I don't think many people are thing about BLM, and Free Palestine went from a topic really only seen on college campuses to something I would term real due to all the destruction and actual death. Whether or not the Israeli response to Oct. 7 is justified or not really does cross party lines.

Issues that people are really concerned about are things like men in women's sports and changing rooms (and prisons). Even more important is that Dems will disparage peoples' character for even expressing concern about these issues.

Cowtowing to the extreme activists instead of telling them when they have gone too far does not go well with centrist voters.

(And it doesn't matter what I think; if I'm wrong, everything I say is irrelevant. But if I'm right, then unless and until any party wanting to be in power actually pays attention to voters, rather than trying to tell them what to think, they will be out in the cold.)

Because it's Not. An. Issue.

Fox News has people so freaked out about the occasional trans person who, trust me, doesn't want to make a big deal of their presence, that they are convinced Trump is the only person protecting their daughters from some perv in a wig.

I just moved to the suburbs and the neighborhood Facebook group had a post from a local mom with a rising middle schooler worried about whether there were "furries."

Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick.

OMG. That's hilarious! Oh no! Not the furries! What's the world coming to? Sheesh!

She was so sweet, too. "Not judging, just curious."

Ah, ok. Well, that's something.

[Ruralguy]

I think there's an importance vs. urgency thing going on with voter issue ranking. People who are struggling a bit, even if inflation is lower now than 2 years ago, will feel the urgency of bills and such. And maybe they are a 75 year old man and don't see abortion as *urgent*, but they may very well see it as important that people have these rights. Similar with a foreign policy issue such as Gaza. A twenty year old woman might see both economy and abortion as more urgent issues, but for various reasons could see the US role in Gaza as important, and on some days, such as Oct 7, 2023, it seemed extremely important.

[Sun_Worshiper]

Also there is a lot of evidence to indicate that many (maybe most) people do not really vote based on policy

[dismalist]

Voters are rationally ignorant. You have a close to zero chance of determining the outcome of the election. Any cost you may pay or benefits you may get from the outcome of the election must be multiplied by zero. Hence, there is absolutely no point in becoming expert on the consequences of any policy, even for self-interest.

This is the reason parties appeal to emotions, group spirit, good vs. evil, and the like. Those little stickers that are handed out at the polling booth -- I voted -- are meant to give you a sense of moral superiority. Voting is an expressive undertaking.

This doesn't mean that voters have no information. But they will get it from cheap sources, such as the media, or perhaps what's going on in their immediate surroundings.

[lightning]

Voters care about the abstract issues they are told to care about.  However, everyone regardless of demographic strata cares about the lower levels of Maslow's heirachy.  Oldie but goodie.  That's why the appeals to safety work so well.  Our lizard brains latch onto concrete concerns. 

Politicians can connect with potential voters on the other levels of Maslow's pyramid, as well.

Trump is an example of said politician.

Half of the 3rd level of Maslow, "Belonging". -- check (MAGA, Trump rallies, the Trump campaign borrowed a book from basic sports marketing)

2nd level Level, "Esteem," -- check (Trump's 2016 victory and 2020 "victory.") Trump made his voters feel like "winners" (if only even in their own minds and if even in the past, he makes them feel like winners)

1st level, "Self-actualization." -- check (those right-wing trolls in social media. Even if the trolls' "self-actualization" is low-hanging fruit, it is their "self-actualization" and that is all that matters to them for satisfying the 1st level of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. This is why the trolls are so dogged.).

This is why other Republican candidates had no chance against Trump in the Republican primaries. Trump easily satisfied all levels of the Hierarchy of Needs for the Republican base. Whereas, with DeSantis and Haley, there was no really easy sense of "belonging," no really easy sense of "esteem," and no really easy sense of "self-actualization" with either DeSantis nor Haley as the base's pick. Aligning with Trump, however, gives that Republican base voter "safety," "belonging," "esteem," and "self-actualization." Yes, only in their minds, but it gets Trump their vote.

[dismalist]

I'd be very cautious of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. One finds incredibly poor people going after security before they are fulfilled with food. They also love and have families. They go after self-esteem and self actualization, too.

Some elements of the pyramid are surely substitutes and some are surely complements, but hierarchy  is a stretch.

The point to be made in the political context is that if Trump appeals by using the pyramid why that only attracts Republican sympathizers and not so much Democratic sympathizers.

[secundem_artem]

I've read several analyses that suggest Agent Orange chose JD in the belief that he was headed to a coronation and there would be no reason to try to appeal to anyone other than existing MAGA types.   Then Scranton Joe stepped down, Kamala was thrust in to the breach, and El Trumpo's carefully planned path to a move back to 1600 Penn Ave seemed in doubt.  So far, JD has not presented much evidence that he's of any use to improve Trump's chances come fall.  And the R's have screamed and hollered, "That's NOT FAIR!!!"  But given their consistent lack of consistency, it would not surprise me if the R's go for some kind of  "October Surprise" to throw the D's off their game.

So......

What are the odds that JD comes down with a sudden, unexpected, and severe case of involutional melancholia, or possibly catarrh, or even dropsy and has to drop out for "health reasons" to "spend more time with my family"?  Maybe Ivanka for Veep? 

Unlikely, but never say never.

[Parasaurolophus]

I think Trump will just straight-up drop him. He can play the "you're fired" angle, and they'll love him for it.

[Ruralguy]

I think Trump would see this as weak and stick with him.

His reasoning, and the internal logic is probably not too horrible, is that people pick him for MAGA, and the more MAGA, the better. Who cares if JD is a jerk who rambles about racism and Mountain Dew. Afterall, thats sonething DJ woul do as well!

But if things get bad, as in at least as bad as they had been for Biden, he might
just do something unconventional. Probably not this, but maybe.

[kaysixteen]

There are also dates, in every state, after which Vance could not be taken off of the nov. ballot.

[spork]

I care about potholes getting filled, the mail being delivered, bridges not falling down, and children learning how to read. And reasonably accurate weather forecasts. Yes, the federal government has some role in all of these pursuits, but candidates for national office and the media generally do a terrible job of explaining what that role is and how it works.

There are people who seem to be different from me, though -- those with the so-called authoritarian cognitive predisposition, who feel threatened by signs of social diversity and disagreement. The data suggests that these people will eagerly trade civil liberties in exchange for a promised restoration of the traditional social order. Karen Stenner, Lily Tsai, and Jonathan Haidt, among others, have written about this subject. Here is a sample: https://hopenothate.org.uk/2020/11/01/authoritarianism/

[AmLitHist]

RFK, Jr., a dead bear, and a bike.

I'm having trouble keeping up with all the weird these days.

[Sun_Worshiper]

RFK, Jr., a dead bear, and a bike.

I'm having trouble keeping up with all the weird these days.

There is no way that his version of the story is true